## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S

O F T E X A S

N O

. P D

- 0 4 6 3

- 0 8

T H E S T A T E O F T E X A S

v

.

R O M A N R O D R I G U E Z

, A p p e l l e e

O N S T A T E ’ S P E T I T I O N F O R D I S C R E T I O N A R Y R E V I E W

F R O M T H E F O U R T H C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

B E X A R C O U N T Y

C O C H R A N

, J

. , d e l i v e r e d t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t i n w h i c h K E L L E R

, P

. J

. , a n d

M E Y E R S

, P R IC E

, J O H N S O N

, K E A S L E R a n d H E R V E Y

, J J

. , j o i n e d

. P R IC E

, J

. , f i l e d a

c o n c u r r i n g o p i n i o n i n w h i c h K E L L E R

, P

. J

. , j o i n e d

. W O M A C K

, J

. , c o n c u r r e d

.

O P I N I O N

R o m a n R o d r i g u e z w a s c h a r g e d w i t h r e c k l e s s l y d i s c h a r g i n g a f i r e a r m

. T h e S t a t e ’ s

1

i n f o r m a t i o n a l l e g e d t h a t M r

. R o d r i g u e z r e c k l e s s l y d i s c h a r g e d a f i r e a r m “ b y p u l l i n g t h e

t r i g g e r o n a f

i r e a r m w h i c h c o n t a i n e d a m m u n i t i o n a n d w a s o p e r a b l e

. ” T h e t r i a l j u d g e g r a n t e d

T E X

. P E N A L C O D E § 42.12(a) (“A person c ommits an off ense if the person r eckle ssly 1

discharg es a f

irea rm inside the cor

porate limit s of a municipality having a population of 100,000

or more.” )Rodrigue z P ag e 2

t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s M o t i o n t o S e t A s i d e t h e I n f o r m a t i o n w h i c h c l a i m e d t h a t t h e S t a t e f a i l e d t o

a l l e g e “ a n y a c t o r c i r c u m s t a n c e w h i c h w o u l d s h o w ” t h a t h i s d i s c h a r g e o f a f i r e a r m “ w a s d o n e

i n a r e c k l e s s m a n n e r

. ” T h e S t a t e a p p e a l e d

, a n d t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s a f f i r m e d t h e t r i a l j u d g e ’ s

r u l i n g

. W e g r a n t e d t h e S t a t e ’ s p e t i t i o n t o r e v i e w w h e t h e r t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s c o r r e c t l y h e l d

2 3

t h a t t h e i n f

o r m a t i o n w a s d e f

e c t i v e b e c a u s e i t f

a i l e d t o a p p r i s e t h e d e f e n d a n t o f “ t h e

c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h a t i n d i c a t e [ M r

. R o d r i g u e z ] p u l l e d t h e t r i g g e r o f a l o a d e d f i r e a r m i n a

r e c k l e s s m a n n e r

. ” W e a g r e e w i t h t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s

. 4

I

.

T h e S t a t e ’ s i n f

o r m a t i o n a l l e g e d t h a t M r

. R o d r i g u e z r e c k l e s s l y d i s c h a r g e d a f i r e a r m

i n s i d e t h e c o r p o r a t e c i t y l i m i t s o f a m u n i c i p a l i t y w i t h a p o p u l a t i o n o f 1 0 0

, 0 0 0 o r m o r e

,

n a m e l y S a n A n t o n i o

, “ b y p u l l i n g t h e t r i g g e r o n a f i r e a r m w h i c h c o n t a i n e d a m m u n i t i o n a n d

w a s o p e r a b l e

. ” W e l l

, o f c o u r s e h e d i d

. E v e r y o n e w h o d i s c h a r g e s a f i r e a r m p u l l s t h e t r i g g e r

,

a n d e v e r y f

i r e a r m t h a t i s d i s c h a r g e d c o n t a i n s a m m u n i t i o n a n d i s o p e r a b l e i f i t d i s c h a r g e s

.

T h e S t a t e h a s

, i n e s s e n c e

, p l e d a t a u t o l o g y : T h e d e f e n d a n t r e c k l e s s l y d i s c h a r g e d a f i r e a r m

b e c a u s e h e d i s c h a r g e d a f i r e a r m

.

State v. Rodriguez , No. 04-07-00436- CR, 2008 W L 506273 (Tex. App.–San Antonio, 2

Fe bruar y 27, 2008) (not desig nated f or publication).

The State’s sole g round for revie w re ads as f

ollows: 3

The c ourt of appe als err ed whe n it concluded that a n alleg ation that a def

endant:

“re cklessly

discharg ed a f

irea rm . . . by pulling the trig g er on a

firea rm which c ontained

ammunition and was oper able” was insuffic ient to satisfy the re quirement that the

information “a lleg e with re asonable cer tainty the ac t or ac ts relied upon to constitute

rec klessness.”

Rodriguez , 2008 WL 506273 at *1. 4Rodrigue z P ag e 3

T h e S t a t e ’ s a l l e g a t i o n o f r e c k l e s s n e s s i n t h i s c a s e t e l l s t h e d e f e n d a n t n o t h i n g m o r e

t h a n t h a t h e f

i r e d a g u n w i t h i n t h e c i t y l i m i t s o f S a n A n t o n i o

. B u t

, a s t h e d e f e n d a n t a r g u e s

,

t h i s p e n a l o f

f e n s e i s n o t o n e o f s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y t h a t c r i m i n a l i z e s e v e r y a c t o f d i s c h a r g i n g a

f i r e a r m w i t h i n c i t y l i m i t s

. U n d e r t h e S t a t e ’ s p l e a d i n g

, h o w e v e r

, a n y a c t o f “ p u l l i n g t h e

t r i g g e r o n a f

i r e a r m w h i c h c o n t a i n e d a m m u n i t i o n a n d w a s o p e r a b l e ” w i t h i n t h e c i t y l i m i t s o f

a l a r g e c i t y w o u l d b e r e c k l e s s n e s s p e r s e a n d s u b j e c t t o p r o s e c u t i o n u n d e r S e c t i o n 4 2

. 1 2 ( a )

. 5

T h u s

, i f a p e r s o n s h o o t s a t a r o b b e r o r r a p i s t c l i m b i n g i n t o h i s b e d r o o m w i n d o w

, h e c o u l d

b e p r o s e c u t e d u n d e r t h e S t a t e ’ s p l e a d i n g

. I f h e s h o o t s a t a r a t t l e s n a k e l y i n g i n t h e b u s h e s 6

b e s i d e h i s h o m e

, h e i s l i a b l e t o b e p r o s e c u t e d u n d e r t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n

. I f

– a s t h e t r i a l j u d g e

h y p o t h e s i z e d

– h e g o e s t o t h e m u n i c i p a l s h o o t i n g r a n g e a n d “ p u l l s t h e t r i g g e r o n a f i r e a r m

w h i c h c o n t a i n e d a m m u n i t i o n a n d w a s o p e r a b l e

, ” h e m a y b e p r o s e c u t e d f o r a C l a s s A

m i s d e m e a n o r

. S u r e l y t h a t i s n o t t h e l a w

. T h e s e a r e n o t n e c e s s a r i l y r e c k l e s s a c t s

. T h e y m a y

b e e n t i r e l y a p p r o p r i a t e a n d l a w f u l a c t s u n d e r t h e p a r t i c u l a r c i r c u m s t a n c e s

. I t i s o n l y w h e n

t h e d e f e n d a n t i s r e c k l e s s i n t h e m a n n e r o r c i r c u m s t a n c e s u n d e r w h i c h h e “ p u l l [ s ] t h e t r i g g e r

See State v . Vasquez , 34 S.W .3d 332, 334 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 2000, no pet.) 5

(re jecting State’s ar g ument that the dischar g e of a firea rm is per se rec kless under se ction

42.12(a) and ther efor e State did not have to c omply with art. 21.15 by

alleg ing c ircumstance s that

showed that discha

rg e wa s rec kless; “I f the leg islature had intende d the dischar g e of a firea rm

within city

limit s to be per se rec kless, it need not have included the wor d ‘re cklessly ’ in the

statute.”); see also Garza v. State , 50 S.W .3d 559, 564 n.1 (Tex. App.–Houston [1s t Dist.] 2001,

no pet.) (f ollowing Vasquez

and noting that “the State' s interpre tation would lead to absurd

results-for

example, making shooting at shooting r ang es (e ven those owne d by the city or State)

within city

limit s per se illega l.”).

I n this inst ance , of cour se, the de fenda nt could raise se lf-def

ense a t trial, but the 6

pleading would suffice to char g e an of fense under Sec tion 42.12(a).Rodrigue z P ag e 4

o n a f i r e a r m w h i c h c o n t a i n e d a m m u n i t i o n a n d w a s o p e r a b l e ” t h a t h e i s c r i m i n a l l y l i a b l e

. 7

I I

.

T h e i s s u e i n t h i s c a s e i s n o t “ h o w ” d i d t h e d e f e n d a n t d i s c h a r g e a f

i r e a r m ( b y p u l l i n g

t h e t r i g g e r )

, b u t h o w d i d h e a c t “ r e c k l e s s l y ” i n d i s c h a r g i n g t h e f i r e a r m

. W h e n i t i s a l l e g e d

t h a t t h e a c c u s e d a c t e d r e c k l e s s l y

, A r t i c l e 2 1

. 1 5 o f t h e T e x a s C o d e o f C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e

r e q u i r e s a d d i t i o n a l l a n g u a g e i n t h e c h a r g i n g i n s t r u m e n t

. T h i s l a n g u a g e m u s t s e t o u t “ t h e a c t 8

o r a c t s r e l i e d u p o n t o c o n s t i t u t e r e c k l e s s n e s s [

. ] ” B u t

, a s w e r e c e n t l y n o t e d i n o u r u n a n i m o u s

d e c i s i o n i n S m i t h v

. S t a t e

, t h e r e i s s o m e c o n c e p t u a l d i f f i c u l t y a b o u t t h e s p e c i f

i c t e r m s u s e d 9

i n A r t i c l e 2 1

. 1 5 :

P r o f e s s o r s D i x a n d D a w s o n h a v e c o m m e n t e d t h a t t h e t e r m s o f A r t i c l e 2 1

. 1 5

p r e s e n t “ s o m e c o n c e p t u a l d i f f i c u l t y

. ” T h e p r o b l e m a r i s e s f r o m t h e 1 9 7 4 P e n a l

C o d e ’ s d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n c u l p a b l e m e n t a l s t a t e s a n d a c t s

. S e c t i o n

1

. 0 7 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) o f t h e P e n a l C o d e d e f i n e s “ c o n d u c t ” a s “ a n a c t o r o m i s s i o n a n d i t s

a c c o m p a n y i n g m e n t a l s t a t e

. ” A n “ a c t ” i s d e f i n e d a s “ a b o d i l y m o v e m e n t

,

See T E X

. P E N A L C O D E § 6.03(c) (“A person a cts rec klessly , or is rec kless, with respec t 7

to circumstanc es surrounding his conduct or the r esult of his conduct whe n he is awa re of but

consciously

disreg ards a

substantial and unjustifiable risk that the cir cumstance s exi st or the

result will occur . The risk must be of suc h a natur e and de g ree that its disreg ard c onstitut es a

g ross deviation fr om the standard of car e that an or dinary

person would e x erc ise under a ll the

circ umstances a s viewed f rom the ac tor’s standpoint.”).

T E X

. C O D E C R I M

. P R O C . art. 21.15. Tha t article r eads a s follows: 8

Whenever

rec klessness or c riminal neg lige nce e nters into or is a par t or eleme nt of

any offe nse, or it is char g ed that the a ccuse d acte d rec klessly or with criminal

neg lige nce in the c ommissi on of an of fense , the complaint, information, or

indictment in order to be suf ficient in any

such ca se must alleg e, with re asonable

cer tainty , the ac t or ac ts relied upon to constitute rec klessness or c riminal

neg lige nce, a

nd in no event shall it be suffic ient to alleg e mer ely that the ac cused,

in committi ng the offe nse, ac ted re cklessly or with criminal neg lige nce.

309 S.W .3d 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). 9Rodrigue z P ag e 5

w h e t h e r v o l u n t a r y o r i n v o l u n t a r y

. ” A n d S e c t i o n 6

. 0 3 ( c ) o f t h e P e n a l C o d e

s t a t e s

, “ A p e r s o n a c t s r e c k l e s s l y

, o r i s r e c k l e s s

, w i t h r e s p e c t t o c i r c u m s t a n c e s

s u r r o u n d i n g h i s c o n d u c t o r t h e r e s u l t o f h i s c o n d u c t w h e n h e i s a w a r e o f b u t

c o n s c i o u s l y d i s r e g a r d s a s u b s t a n t i a l a n d u n j u s t i f i a b l e r i s k t h a t t h e

c i r c u m s t a n c e s e x i s t o r t h e r e s u l t w i l l o c c u r

. ” T h e l a n g u a g e o f A r t i c l e 2 1

. 1 5

a s s u m e s t h a t t h e c u l p a b l e m e n t a l s t a t e o f r e c k l e s s n e s s c a n b e “ c o n s t i t u t e d ” b y

s o m e “ a c t

. ” H o w e v e r

, t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f “ a c t

, ” a d d e d i n 1 9 7 4

, m a d e t h i s a

“ c o n c e p t u a l i m p o s s i b i l i t y

. ” 1 0

I n S m i t h

, w e e x p l a i n e d t h a t

, b e c a u s e o f t h i s “ c o n c e p t u a l i m p o s s i b i l i t y

, ” t h e “ a c t o r

a c t s c o n s t i t u t i n g r e c k l e s s n e s s ” u n d e r A r t i c l e 2 1

. 1 5 a r e r e a l l y t h o s e “ c i r c u m s t a n c e s ”

s u r r o u n d i n g t h e c r i m i n a l a c t f r o m w h i c h t h e t r i e r o f f a c t m a y i n f

e r t h a t t h e a c c u s e d a c t e d

w i t h t h e r e q u i r e d r e c k l e s s n e s s

. T h u s

, i n S m i t h

, a n i n d e c e n t e x p o s u r e c a s e

, w e h e l d t h a t t h e 1 1

S t a t e w a s r e q u i r e d t o p l e a d t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s u n d e r w h i c h t h e d e f e n d a n t e x p o s e d

h i m s e l f

– s u c h a s “ i n a p u b l i c p l a c e ”

– t o i n d i c a t e w h y h i s o t h e r w i s e l a w f u l a c t w a s r e c k l e s s

. 1 2

A s t h i s C o u r t s t a t e d i n G e n g n a g e l v

. S t a t e

, w h e n r e c k l e s s n e s s i s a n e l e m e n t o f t h e 1 3

o f f e n s e

, t h e c h a r g i n g i n s t r u m e n t m u s t “ a l l e g e t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e a c t w h i c h i n d i c a t e t h a t

t h e d e f e n d a n t a c t e d i n a r e c k l e s s m a n n e r

. ” T h e r e f o r e

, i n t h i s “ r e c k l e s s d i s c h a r g e ” s t a t u t e

, 1 4

t h e S t a t e m u s t a l l e g e s o m e t h i n g a b o u t t h e s e t t i n g o r c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f d i s c h a r g i n g a f i r e a r m

Id. at 14 (footnotes omitted) ( citing 41 G E O R G E E. D I X & R O B E R T O. D A W S O N

, 1 0

C R I M I N A L P R A C T I C E A N D P R O C E D U R E § 20.171, at 624 (Te x . Prac. 2d e d. 2001)).

Id. at 15. 1 1

Id. at 16. 1 2

748 S.W .2d 227 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988), supersede d by constitutional amendment on 1 3

other grounds , T E X

. C O N S T . art. V, § 12.

Id . at 229 (e mphasis added)

. 1 4Rodrigue z P ag e 6

w i t h i n c i t y l i m i t s t h a t d e m o n s t r a t e s d i s r e g a r d o f a k n o w n a n d u n j u s t i f i a b l e r i s k

. F o r e x a m p l e

,

t h e S t a t e m i g h t a l l e g e “ b y s h o o t i n g i n t o t h e g r o u n d i n a c r o w d o f p e o p l e

, ” o r “ b y s h o o t i n g 1 5

a g u n i n t h e a i r i n a r e s i d e n t i a l d i s t r i c t

, ” o r “ b y s h o o t i n g a t b e e r b o t t l e s i n h i s b a c k y a r d i n 1 6

a r e s i d e n t i a l d i s t r i c t

, ” o r “ b y s h o o t i n g a g u n o n t h e g r o u n d s o f a n e l e m e n t a r y s c h o o l

, ” o r “ b y

s h o o t i n g a t a S t o p s i g n i n a b u s i n e s s d i s t r i c t

, ” o r “ b y s h o o t i n g i n t o t h e b u s h e s a t a c i t y

p a r k

. ” T h e s e a r e t h e s o r t s o f a c t i o n s t h a t m i g h t e n t a i l a k n o w n a n d u n j u s t i f i a b l e r i s k o f 1 7

Garza v. State , 50 S.W .3d 559, 564 (Tex. App.–Houston [1s t Dist.] 2001, no pet.) 1 5

(stating that the words discha rg ing a firea rm “into the g round in a c rowd of pe ople” de scribed the

rec kless act r equire d under se ction 42.12(a) ).

See P eople v . W

atkins , 837 N.E.2d 943, 946 (I ll. App. Ct. 2005) (rec kless discharg e of 1 6

a fire arm in a municipa lity proven w hen stipulated evide nce show ed that def endant r epeatedly

fired a g un into the air in a re sidential neig hborhood); see also Pe ople v. Collins , 824 N.E.2d

262, 268 (I ll. 2005) (suffic ient evidenc e to show re ckless discha rg e of f irea rm when de fenda

nt

fired g un into air and seve ral pe ople wer e in the vicinity ; “The inhe rent da ng er c aused by

the

rec kless discharg e of a

firea rm into the air, and the obvious ricoche t effe ct that may occur when

bullets fall to the g round, ar e matter s of common sense. I n this case, what inevitably came down

endang ere d, place d individuals in peril of probable ha rm or loss, those in the vicinity of the

discharg e.”)

.

I n its Brief

, the State asks this Court to further e lucidate its discussion in Gengnage l 1 7

conce rning what “c ircumstance s” of r eckle ssness the State must alleg e. I t asks: “Must the

defe ndant also be r eckle ss about whether people a re ne arby ? Must the defe ndant also be r eckle ss

about whethe r prope rty

might be de stroy ed? Must the defe ndant also be r eckle ss about whether

people mig ht be disturbed by the sound? ” State’s B rief at 9.

These mig ht be the ty

pe of c ircumstance s that could, in a par ticular c ase, suppor

t a

finding that the def

endant wa s awa

re of , but consciously

disreg arde d, a substantial and

unjustifiable risk, one whose disreg ard c onstitut ed a g ross deviation fr om the standard of car e

that an ordina

ry person would e x erc ise under a ll of the circ umstances a s viewed f rom the

defe ndant’s standpoint. T E X

. P E N A L C O D E § 6.03(b). F or example, in Townsl ey v . State , 538

S.W .2d 411 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976), an involuntary manslaug hter c ase, the State alleg ed that the

defe ndant re cklessly

cause d the dea th of the victim “by driving a motor vehic le at an e x cessive

rate of spee d while attempting to elude a police office r and r eckle ssly causing said vehicle to run

off the r oadwa

y and roll over , there by

fata lly injuring the said [victim ], who was a passe ng er in

said vehicle .” Id. at 411. The or dinary person r eading that indictment would be quite likely to

conclude that driving in that manner a nd under those c ircumstance s, if proven, w ould raise aRodrigue z P ag e 7

h a r m o r i n

j u r y t o o t h e r s

, r i s k s t h a t t h e o r d i n a r y p e r s o n i n t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s s h o e s p r o b a b l y

w o u l d n o t t a k e

. T h i s i s w h a t t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s m e a n t w h e n i t s a i d t h a t t h e “ S t a t e ’ s 1 8

i n f o r m a t i o n

. . . d i d n o t i n f o r m M r

. R o d r i g u e z o f t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h a t i n d i c a t e h e p u l l e d

t h e t r i g g e r o f a l o a d e d f i r e a r m i n a r e c k l e s s m a n n e r

. ” 1 9

substantial and unjustifiable risk of injury to the passeng er. I

t is the defenda

nt who is entitled to

notice of the acts or c ircumstance s surrounding the alleg ed ac ts that the State intends to prove to

establish rec klessness, see id. at 412, but a pra ctical g uide to the suffic iency of the de scription of

rec klessness might be whether the ordinar

y person r eading that pleading would say , “Tha t sounds

unjustifiably

risky to me.” Compare the pleading found suffic ient in Townsl ey to that found

insufficient in Gengnage l . I n that indece nt expos ure c ase, the State had alleg ed that the

defe ndant exposed his ge nitals reckle ssly by “expositi on of his g enitals by the def endant to

complainant.” 748 S.W.2d at 228. What is reckless about that? I t is another tautolog y – the

defe ndant re cklessly

exposed his genitals be cause he exposed his ge nitals to “the complainant.”

Ex posing one ’s g enitals is not necessa rily rec kless or unlawf

ul. I t is reckless if the other pe rson

is a strang e child, a stra

ng e adult, or the exposure takes plac e at hig h noon in the courthouse

square , or in any

public place wher e other s who might be offe nded ar e likely to be pre sent. I n

sum, the State must allege those particula r ac ts or circ umstances surr ounding the act that, a t least,

sug g est an unjustifiable risk.

See T E X

. P E N A L C O D E § 6.03(c) ; see also 22 C.J .S. Criminal L aw § 51 (2006) ( “A 1 8

person is said to ac t rec klessly when he or she c onsciously disreg ards a

substantial and

unjustifiable risk that an injury will occur, or

when his or he r ac tion is grossly heedle ss of

conseque nces.” ); 21 Am.J ur.2d Criminal L aw § 138 (2d ed. 1998) (“Rec klessness re quires that

an ac tor consciously

disreg ard a

substantial and unjustifiable risk.”)

. This require ment of “r eckle ssness” conc erning the safe ty of others is the state d rationale

behind the 1995 leg islation enacting Section 42.12. Acts, 1995, 74th L eg ., ch. 663, § 1. As the

Senate c ommitt ee r eport a nd bill analy sis to S .B. 68 state s,

The 73rd L eg islature passe d S.B. 145 re g arding the re ckless discha rg e of a firea rm

in cer tain metropolitan are as ef fec tive September 1, 1993. H oweve r, whe n the

revised Pena l Code took effe ct, the statute wa s repe aled be cause it had been

omitted in the Penal Code ref orm bill. Now, Houston, Dallas, and othe r hea vily

populated metropolitan a

rea s are confr onted with the problem of c itiz ens

rec klessly discharg ing f

irea rms without

regard to the safety of the pe ople around

them, with no means to reg ulate them.

Id. (empha sis added).

Rodriguez , 2008 WL 506273 at *1. 1 9Rodrigue z P ag e 8

A s t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s f u r t h e r n o t e d

, “ t h e a c t s i n d i c a t i n g r e c k l e s s n e s s n e e d n o t b e

p l e d i n p e n a l c o d e t e r m s n o r b e f a c i a l l y r e c k l e s s a c t s

, [ b u t ] t h e a l l e g a t i o n s m u s t b e s u f f i c i e n t

t o a l l o w a t r i e r o f f

a c t t o c o n c l u d e t h a t R o d r i g u e z w a s r e c k l e s s i n h i s a c t i o n s

. ” T h a t i s

, 2 0

w h a t f a c t s a r e i n t h e c h a r g i n g i n s t r u m e n t a b o u t t h i s p a r t i c u l a r “ d i s c h a r g e ” f r o m w h i c h a j u r y

c o u l d i n f e r t h a t t h e d e f

e n d a n t w a s a c t i n g r e c k l e s s l y i n s t e a d o f p e r f e c t l y p r o p e r l y

– s u c h a s

d e f e n d i n g h i m s e l f f

r o m a r o b b e r o r r a t t l e s n a k e

– o r i n s t e a d o f p e r f o r m i n g a l a w f

u l

a c t i v i t y

– s u c h a s p r a c t i c i n g a t a m u n i c i p a l s h o o t i n g r a n g e

.

W e a g r e e w i t h t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s t h a t “ t h e S t a t e f a i l e d t o a l l e g e w i t h r e a s o n a b l e

c e r t a i n t y t h e a c t o r c i r c u m s t a n c e w h i c h i n d i c a t e s R o d r i g u e z d i s c h a r g e d t h e f i r e a r m i n a

r e c k l e s s m a n n e r

. ” T h e r e f o r e

, w e a f

f i r m t h e l o w e r c o u r t ’ s j u d g m e n t w h i c h h a d u p h e l d t h e 2 1

t r i a l j u d g e ’ s r u l i n g

.

D e l i v e r e d : A p r i l 6

, 2 0 1 1

P u b l i s h

Id.

2 0

Rodriguez , 2008 WL 506273 at *2. 2 1